U B 

(L33 
.l\5 
91) 




REESTABLISHMENT OF TERRITO 
RIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY 



HEARINGS 



BEFOEE THE 



COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS 
UNITED STATES SENATE 



SIXTY-SECOND CONGRESS 



ON 



S. RES. 71 



A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON MILITARY 
AFFAIRS TO REPORT AS TO THE RELATIVE MERITS 
OF DIVISIONAL, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM DE- 
PARTMENTAL, HEADQUARTERS IN THE 
MILITARY ORGANIZATION 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Military Affairs 



WASHINGT'ON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1911 






COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS. 
HKNRY A. DU PONT Delaware, Chairman. 



FRANCIS E. WARREN, Wyoming. 
JOSEPH M DIXON, Montana. 
FRANK O. BRIGGS, New Jersey. 
NORRIS BROWN, Nebraska. 
SIMON GUGGENHEIM, Colorado. 
JOSEPH L. BRISTOW, Kansas. 
WESLEY L. JONES, Washington. 
WILLIAM LORIMER, Illinois, 

2 



MURPHY J. FOSTER, Louisiana. 
JOSEPH F. JOHNSTON, Alabama. 
JAMES P. CLARKE, Arkansas. 
ROBERT L. TAYLOR, Tennessee. 
GEORGE E. CHAMBERLAIN, Oregon. 
GILBERT M. HITCHCOCK, Nebraska. 
JOHN SHARP WILLIAMS, Mississippi. 



REESTABLISHMENT OF TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 



THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1911. 

United States Senate, 
Committee on Military Affairs, 

Washington, D. C. 
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m. 

Present: Senators du Pont (cliaii'inan), Brown, Bristow, Foster, 
Chamberlain, and Hitchcock. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. ARTHUR MURRAY, GENERAL STAFF, 
ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF. 

The Chairman. Gen. Murray, the Senate on the 16th instant passed 

this resolution: 

Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs be authorized and directed to 
investigate and report to the Senate its findings and recommendations upon the 
question presented in Senate Document Numbered Forty-two, involving the rela- 
tive merits of divisional, as distinguished from departmental, headquarters in the 
military organization throughout the coimtry. 

We have asked you to come before us to-day in order that you may 
give us your views in detail in regard to this whole question, on the 
relative merits of the divisional and departmental organizations. 

Gen. Murray. In explaining the relative merits of the divisional 
and departmental organizations, as requested by the chairman, I 
would first invite attention of the committee to Senate resolution 55, 
of June 1. In tliat resolution certain inquiries of the War Depart- 
ment are made; I will first read each inquiry in order as made in the 
resolution, and then answer it as far as I can. 

The Chairman. That is entirely satisfactory. 

Gen. Murray. The first inquiry in the resolution reads: 

That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, directed to furnish the Senate with 
a statement of the reasons for the proposed reestablishment of division headquarters 
in the Army. 

That is answered in full in the memorandum entitled ''Exhibit 
No. 1," beginning on page 3 of the letter of the Secretary of War to 
the Senate (S. Doc. 42), with the appendices as pubHshed, and end- 
ing on page 44. 

The next inquiry is: 

together with a description of the proposed divisions, and a statement of the number 
of officers and civilian employees to be stationed at each division headquarters, and 
the number of officers and civilian employees that it is proposed to withdraw from 
each of the department headquarters as now organized. 

That is answered in Exhibit No. 5. Exhibit No. 5 consists of— 

tables showing the number of clerks and messengers (civilian employees) on duty at 
department headquarters at the present time, an estimate of the number that it is 



4 TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 

believed will be sufficient for administrative purposes at division and department 
headquarters under the proposed divisional organization, and the corresponding saving 
in clerks and messengers under the divisional scheme. 

I will return to this answer and explain it more fully, later. 

The next inquiry is: 

also what effect, if any, the proposed return to the system of division headquarters will 
have on Army expenditures, and whether this was taken into account in makmg up 
the estimates "for the next fiscal year; and if so, in M'hat total amount. 

That is answered on page 2 of the letter referred to, beginning 
with the second paragraph from the top of the page. I will read 
what is there stated in the letter, as it is comparatively short: 

The effect which the proposed return to the system of division headquarters will 
have on Army expenditures is indicated in the following statement of the annual 
saving which it is estimated will be effected by the new system: 

Rental of buildings - ----. $30,000 

Commutation of quarters paid to officers on duty in cities 24, 000 

Clerical hire 165, 000 

Messenger hire 26, 000 

Total estimated sa\'ing 245, 000 

In addition to the preceding, there will be a considerable saving in fuel, light, etc. 

Approximately 35 officers and a considerable number of enlisted men now on duty 
at the headquarters of departments will be made available for other duty. 

The saving to be effected as above indicated was not included in the estimates for 
appropriations for the Army for the fiscal year 1912, for the reason that the plan had 
not been approved when these estimates were submitted. 

As the surplus clerks and messengers are not to be discharged at once, as indicated 
in instructions to bureau chiefs above quoted, the saving for the fiscal year 1912 will 
not be as great as for ensuing years. A considerable saving will, however, be made 
in that fiscal year (1912) and the money will revert to the Treasury. The total saving 
will be taken into account in making up the estimates for the next fiscal year. 

With regard to the question of clerks here referred to, there is 
given at the top of page 2 an extract from a letter of instructions 
sent to bureau chiefs in regard to the clerks, which reads as follows: 

The Secretary of War further directs that the above-named chiefs of bureaus be 
informed that while it is desired, with a view to eventual economy to the Govern- 
ment, that the tabulated statement above called for show the minimum number of 
clerks and messengers to do the work of their respective departments at division 
headquarters efficiently, it is not his intention to direct the immediate discharge of 
the number of clerks and messengers now in service found unnecessary for the effi- 
cient performance of work at division and department headquarters under the new 
scheme of territorial administration, but to direct that these surplus clerks and mes- 
sengers be temporarily distributed at the headquarters of divisions and departments 
and at other places where their services may be of value; that vacancies in certain 
grades of clerks and messengers be not filled; and that the clerical and messenger 
force at division headquarters be thus reduced by the end of the fiscal year 1912 to 
the minimum numbers considered necessary for efficient work at those headquarters. 

These instructions of the Secretary in regard to the distribution 
of surplus clerks and messengers caused by the adoption of the 
division organization were ever with the view of not bringing too great 
hardship on these surplus clerks and messengers by their sudden dis- 
charge from service, but to reduce the numbers by not filling vacan- 
cies as they occur from any cause until the system or scheme has 
been thoroughly carried out and the minimum numbers necessary 
for efhciont service in each bureau or department has been reached. 

With regard to the first inquiry as to the reasons for the proposed 
reestablishment of division headquarters in the Army, the last two 
paragraphs of the letter of the Secretary give a little more explanation 
of that. 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 5 

Senator Hitchcock. That is relating' to efficiency ? 

Gen. Murray. No; relating to the reasons for the reestablishment 
of territorial divisions. I read from page 2 of the vSecretary's letter, 
the last paragraph: 

In conclusion I desire to invite attention to the fact that while in this communica- 
tion I have used the expression "proposed return to the system of division head- 
quarters" as used in the Senate resolution, the new scheme is not a return to any- 
former system in use in our Army, since, heretofore, when division headquarters have 
been established the departmental headquarters have retained their administrative 
functions and staff and a full corps of clerks and messengers, while under the scheme 
now proposed such functions, staff, clerks, and messengers have been eliminated at 
department headquarters, and the department commanders left free to attend to their 
proper tactical and supervisory duties. 

WTiile the financial benefit to be derived from the new territorial organization has 
been largely dwelt upon, it is thought that the greater gain to the Army will be in the 
increased efficiency brought about by freeing the general officers in command of 
departments from the irksome and time-consuming duties of administration and per- 
mitting them to devote their whole time and attention to the proper traming, inspec- 
tion, and supervision of their commands. 

Senator Hitchcock. I was going to suggest that we take up one 
subject at a time. 

Gen. Murray. Yes; now I will take up the first part of the ques- 
tion, and answer it. 

Senator Hitchcock. I understand there are two phases to the 
question, one of economy and one of efficiency ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. I would like to add one more word with 
regard to this same matter, as to whether or not this is a return to 
aii}^ previous scheme. 

Senator Hitchcock. Oh, yes. 

Gen. Murray. Beginning with the close of our Civil War we had 
a divisional organization in which we had both territorial divisions 
and departments, each with a full administrative staff. 

Senator Hitchcock. That is, both divisions and departments ? 

Gen. xnIurray. Both divisions and departments. This was con- 
tinued until 1891, when the territorial divisions were abolished and 
the departments only left, continuing still with the full administrative 
staff at each department headquarters. 

The Chairman. Did I understand you to say that the divisions 
also had a full administrative staff ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes; during the period I have stated or from the 
close of the Civil War until 1891. From 1891 until December, 1903, 
territorial de]:)artments only existed. In December, 1903, I think it 
was, or at any rate in the fall of 1903 — territorial divisions were 
reestablished, but with an administrative organization entirely 
different from that which has been adopted for the present divisional 
scheme. The division was made at that time more of a tactical 
than an administrative unit, and the department was made the 
principal administrative unit; the division commander being given 
supervisory duties principally and provided with a reduced staff, 
while the department conmander was given both tactical and admin- 
istrative duties and was provided with a full administrative staff. 
Under the present scheme the division is made the administrative 
unit, the department a tactical unit only; the division commander 
being provided with a full tactical and administrative staff, the 
depaitment cammander with a tactical staff only. 

Senator Chamberlain. How many divisions did joii have during 
that period. 



6 TEERITOKIAL DIVISIONS IN THE AEMY. 

Gen. Murray. Three, as I recollect. The department commanders 
as stated had full administrative staffs. In 1907, after this organiza- 
tion had been in operation for four years, Gen. Corbin, who had had 
command of a division stated in a letter to the War Department that 
he believed 

The Chairman. General, may I interrupt you one moment? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, these division commanders, as 
you have just stated, had practically nothing but duties of inspection 
and general supervision. 

Gen. Murray. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. They had no administrative functions. 

Gen. Murray. Practically none. 

The Chairman. Practically^ none; a minimum of administrative 
functions. Is it not a fact that the depatrment commanders were 
authorized to correspond directly with the War Department ? 

Gen. Murray. I believe they were. 

The Chairman. So that in that way the division commanders were 
really supernumerary ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes; and, as I have said. Gen. Corbin, one of the 
division commanders, stated to the War Department in 1907 that he 
believed that the territorial, divisional, and departmental organiza- 
tion then existing was wrong. He suggested an organization very 
sunilar to that which I recommended in this memorandum of mine. 

The Chairman. General, do you consider it a system in harmony 
with the proper discipline of the Army to have a subordinate com- 
mander, a department commander, as was then the fact, correspond- 
ing directly with the War Department and ignoring his superior 
officer, the division commander? 

Gen. Murray. No, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. Under this proposed new order does the 
department commander report to the division commander or to the 
War Department on technical matters ? 

Gen. Murray. To the division commander. All communications 
from the department commander pass through the division com- 
mander en route to the War Department. 

Senator Chamberlain. Everything ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. He is simply a subordinate to the division 
commander. 

Senator Chamberlain. Does it not create more red tape and make 
it more difficult to accomplish things ? 

Gen. Ml'rray. There is very little in the line of communication 
now that a department commander will have, as compared with 
what he bad under the old system when he had practical control of 
all questions of administrative supply in his department. Now, all 
his communications will relate to the discipline, instruction, and 
general training of his troops, and such communications will be made 
to, or will pass through, the division commander. 

Senator Hitchcock. He will send those to the division commander ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. And the division commander will consider 
them and transit them to the War Department ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE AEMY. 7 

Senator Hitchcock. And the War Department in turn will send 
them to the division commander, and the division commander will 
send them to the department commander; so that, as Senator Cham- 
berlam says, will there not be more red tape ? 

Gen. Murray. They will not necessarily go to the War Depart- 
ment. I would say that nine-tenths of the communications from a 
department commander will probably stop at division headquarters. 

Senator Hitchcock. Who is to decide as to what is to stop there ? 

Gen. Murray. The division commander, in accordance with the 
subject matter of the communication. If it is a matter affecting 
the policy of the War Department, or an administration or tactical 
question not within his province under existing orders and regula- 
tions to decide, or which, in his judgment, should be decided by the 
Secretary of War, he would forward it to the War Department for the 
action of the Secretary. If it is a routine matter or a question over 
which he has administrative control, he would decide the matter 
himself and not forward the communication. 

Senator Hitchcock. Heretofore the department commander has 
written direct to W^ashington and received his answer from Washing- 
ton. Department commanders were required to decide practically 
all routine matters coming up from posts in their departments ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes; and in the same way the division commander 
will decide not only what comes up from the posts, but, under the pro- 
posed scheme, all administrative matters originating at posts will pass 
by department headquarters, because department commanders will 
have nothing to do with matters of supply and administration, all of 
which will go direct from posts to division headquarters and there 
be distributed to and acted upon by chiefs of supply departments 
interested. 

Senator Hitchcock. Where do they start ? You say they would 
come to the division; where would they start? 

Gen. Murray. At the posts. 

Senator Hitchcock. So that the commanders of posts, instead of 
communicating with the department headquarters, would communi- 
cate with division headquarters ? 

Gen. Murray. With regard to administrative matters, matters 
relating to supplies, equipment, etc., because under the proposed 
scheme there will be no corresponding administrative office at depart- 
ment headquarters. Under the new scheme no communications 
relating solely to administration matters of supply, etc., will be sent 
from posts to department head((uarters. 

Senator Chamberlain. That comes to division headquarters ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes; they will come to division headquarters and 
be there acted upon. 

Senator Hitchcock, Then a post commander will send some of 
his correspondence to department headquarters and some to division 
headquarters ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes ; it will be a very simple matter for him to decide 
which should go to each place 

Senator Hitchcock. What I was getting at was this. Then a 
commander at a post will send some of his communications to the 
department headquarters, where his immediate superiors are located, 
and others he will send to t.he division headquarters, where a more 
remote superior is located ? 



8 TERRITOKIAL DIVISIONS IN THE AEMY. 

Gen. Murray. He will send to department headquarters all com- 
munications which relate to the discipline, training, and instruction 
of his troops. 

Snator Hitchcock. Yes. 

Gen. Murray. Those matters only will be under the direct charge 
of the department commanders. The duties devolving upon a depart- 
ment commander under the new scheme are indentical with those of 
a commander of a brigade in time of war, when the brigade is a part 
of a division. A brigade commander in time of war has indentically 
the stall that is now proposed for a department commander in time 
of peace. The brigadier general, then, vfho commands a territorial 
department in time of peace will perform the same duties as a brigade 
commander in time of war. The division in time of war is the great 
administrative and tactical unit. 

Senator Hitchcock. What is the department, in time of war ? 

The Chairman. A brigade. 

Gen. Murray. The department as a command corresponds in 
time of war, as well as in time of peace, to a brigade. In time of war 
it would still remain a territorial department and would be com- 
manded by a brigadier general, whose duties would be the same as 
those of a department commander in time of peace. 

Senator Hitchcock. Does not that create some confusion, having 
two units, with different names and the same functions ? 

Gen. Murray. There has been considerable discussion over the 
question of the most suitable or appropriate names for territorial 
subdivisions; as to whether they should be called departments and 
divisions in peace, thus giving them the same names as the tactical 
and the administrative units, brigades and divisions, of an army in 
time of war, or some other less confusing names. That matter has 
been discussed, and quite freely, in the War Department; but as the 
old names, territorial divisions, departments, and districts, have been 
in use since 1815 and as the distinction between the territorial divi- 
sion, department, and district in time of peace and the division and 
brigade in time of war are clearly understood by all military men, 
it was decided to be best to retain the old names. For these reasons 
no changes in old names were made. A number of suggestions as to 
changes were made, just such as you have made here, with a view to 
avoiding possible confusion, such as that which you now appear to 
think might arise, but after discussion of the matter it was decided, 
as stated, to adhere to tlie old names. 

Senator Hitchcock. Let me go back with you through this his- 
torical statement. I think both Senator Bristow and Senator Cham- 
berlain have come in since you started. 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

The Chairman. Would you allow me to interject a word there ? 

Senator Hitchcock. Yes. 

The Chairman. In time of war a brigade commander, as a rule, is 
serving with his brigade under the immediate direction of the divi- 
sion commander, and at the same place. 

Senator Hitchcock. He does not report to the department com- 
mander ? 

The Chairman. The department commander is eliminated in time 
of war, as a rule. There niay be exceptions. 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. y 

Gen. Murray. The departments v/oiikl probably be left in time of 
war just as they are in time of peace, just as our whole sj^stem of 
territorial administration in the I nited States in time of peace would 
douljtless be left as it is in time of war. As to who would command 
the departments, the department commanders would be brigadier 
generals, if available; if not, officers junior to them would command 
the deprrtments, as has frecjuently been done heretofore in time of 
peace and war. 

Senator Hitchcock. I understood you to say at the time of the 
Civil War, when the Civil War closed, the system in operation was a 
system of division commanders, with full tactical and administra- 
tive powers, and department commanders also with full tactical and 
administrative powers ? 

Gen. Murray. Identically the same. 

Senator Hitchcock. And that those continued from the close of 
the Civil War up until 1891 ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. When the divisions were abolished ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. And the only unit w^as the department ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes; from 1891 until the fall of 1903. 

Senator Hitchcock. Which was the unit for administrative and 
tactical purposes ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. And that that remained so for 12 years, 
until 1903, vvdien the divisions were reestablished, but only for tactical 
purposes ? 

Gen. Murray. For supervisory purposes rather than tactical. 

Senator Hitchcock. And that still the departments continued for 
administrative purposes, and that that system continued from 1903 
until 1907, when Gen. Corbin made his recommendations? 

Gen. Murray. Yes; he recommended that an organization, similar 
to the one that I have recommended, be adopted. 

Senator Hitchcock. It is not the same, as I understand; it is 
diii'erent ? 

Gen. Murray. The details differ slightly, but the main idea in both 
is practically the same. 

iSenator Hitchcock. That is, it created divisions, but permitted 
the departments to remain ? 

Gen. Murray. It permitted the departments to remain, V>ut recom- 
mended tliat their staffs be reduced, almost identically as I have 
recommended should be done. 

Senator Hitchcock. Was that done ? 

Gen. Murray. It was not done, and instead of that being adopted, 
the divisions were abolished and w^e kept the nine departments then 
existing with full tactical and administrative staffs. Those nine 
de]:)artments liave been continued from that time until now. 

Senator Hitchcock. Who was it that opposed Gen. Corbin's 
suggestion ? 

Gen. Murray. That is explained fully, I think you w^ill find, in 
this communication. 

Senator Hitchcock, I will ask 3^ou to state who it was. 

Gen. Murray. I do not know." I think it was Gen. Bell. The 
idea, apparently, did not strike him favorably. 



10 TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 

Senator Hitchcock. Is a matter of that sort submitted to the 
Secretary of War ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes, but it is generally first worked up by the 
General Staff. 

Senator Hitchcock. At that time Mr. Taft was Secretary of War ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes, and I think a number of the General StaiT 
opposed it. All of that is given in this communication. 

Senator Hitchcock. So that when this plan of yours was opposed 
in 1907, it was not acted upon, but was rejected? 

Gen. Murray. A plan differing slightly in detail, but practically 
the same as mine, was rejected. 

Senator Hitchcock. And the present plan has continued from 
1907 until 1911? 

Gen. Murray. I had better try and make it a little more clear than 
that. Gen. Corbin made that suggestion in 1907, as stated, but the 
first time he made a suggestion in reference to such a plan was in the 
fall of 1903. In 1903 the divisions were reestablished, but given 
mainly supervisory powers; the division commanders being given 
reduced staffs, the department commanders retaining full tactical 
and administrative staifs. 

Senator Hitchcock. In 1907 were they abolished? 

Gen. Murray. In 1907 the divisions were abolished; but in 1903 
Gen. Corbin recommended a territorial organization similar to that 
which I have here recommended. 

Senator Hitchcock. Which was rejected? 

Gen. Murray. That recommendation, which was made by a board 
of five officers, of which Gen. Corbin was president and Col. (now 
Gen.) Crowder, Judge Advocate General, was recorder, was referred 
to a division of the General Staft", of which Col. (afterwards Gen.) 
McKenzie, Chief of Engineers, was chief, for further consideration. 
After about two months' study on the subject that division of the 
General Staff recommended practically the same organization as 
Gen. Corbin's board, enlarging a little on the recommendations of 
the board, the recommendations of both being practically identical 
with those made by pie, except that they did not retain the names 
of territorial divisions and departments, as I have done. They 
recommended as names of territorial subdivisions departments and 
districts, instead of divisions, departments, and districts, which we 
have always had. They also recommended four administrative 
divisions instead of three, as I have, with a corresponding number 
of tactical departments. I would like to here add that when I first 
gave the Chief of Staff my views in regard to what I considered a 
proper territorial organization for the Army I did not know of the 
recommendations of Gen. Corbin's board or of the division of the 
General Staff. These I discovered later in looking up the whole 
history of divisions and departments. This simply shows that my 
conclusions were arrived at independently of the work and recom- 
mendations of the board and division referred to. 

Senator Hitchcock. Did I understand you to say that that was 
not accepted ? 

Gen. Murray. That was not accepted. 

Senator Hitchcock. By whom was it rejected ? 

Gen. Murray. The first time it was rejected by Gen. Chaffee. 



TERRITOEIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 11 

Senator Hitchcock. In what year was that ? 

Gen. Mltrray. That was in 1903. 

Senator Hitchcock. Then was it rejected again? 

Gen. Murray. In 1907, when it was suggested by Gen. Corbin in a 
letter to Gen. Bell, then Chief of StalY, given in full in this document, 
Senate Document 42, that the working of the divisional organization 
as established in 1903 was unsatisfactory and that a better organiza- 
tion would be that recommended by Gen. Corbin's board in 1903. 

Senator Hitchcock. Then it was rejected the second time in 1907 ? 

Gen. McRRAY. A general scheme, similar to that now adopted, was 
rejected a second time in 1907. 

Senator Hitchcock. Can you tell me what authority rejected it ? 

Gen. Murray. The Secretary of War rejected it, of course — that is, 
the matter was brought up by the Chief of Stall to him. In the first 
place, it was submitted to Gen. Chaffee, and, in the second place, to 
Gen. Bell, as I remember it. I think I give in the papers. Senate 
Document 42, which are before you, a complete statement of all facts 
regarding what you are now asking me. 

Senator Bristow. May I inquire, what difference does it make to 
us who rejected or did not reject it ? The question with us is whether 
it ought to have been done. 

Senator Hitchcock. That is true. I was trying to find the names 
of the persons who could come before the committee and represent the 
other side of it. 

Senator Bristow. Oh, yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. And I wanted to get from Gen. Murray the 
names of those who could advocate the other side, so that the committee 
could have the views of both sides. Do you not think that is wise ? 

Senator Bristow. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. That is the only purpose of it. Gen. Chaffee 
is not available; he is in California. We could not get him. 

Senator Bristow. He is retired, is he not ? 

Senator Hitchcock. Yes. 

Senator Chamberlain. There is some opposition to this system in 
Army circles now, is there not ? 

Gen. Murray. None whatever, that I know of. I have heard 
nothing but praise of it from any officer of the Army. The only oppo- 
sition to it so far as I know has come from commercial interests in 
localities where department headquarters have been reduced or abol- 
ished, and from a few clerks settled in cities who object to being sent 
elsewhere 

The Chairman. And are not the differences existing to-day some- 
what differentiated from those that obtained in 1903 when Gen. 
Chaffee rejected it ? 

Gen. Murray. I do not think so. I could hardly say so. I tliink 
it should have been adopted then, just as it has been now. 

The Chairman. That is true, but the conditions are certainly dif- 
ferent in respect to what we have now to take care of. There is a cer- 
tain popular feeling now about our defense, and liability to attack, 
that did not exist in 1903. Those conditions are different. 

Senator Hitchcock. If it is satisfactory to the committee and Gen. 
Murray, I would suggest that we take up the question of economy. 
That is a matter that Congress has really more to do with. Take that 



12 TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 

up, General, and give us the items showing how you would save 
$30,000 in rentals. That is one of the items. 

Gen. Murray. Before I answer that I would hke to add, in regard 
to this whole matter of this question of the history of the establish- 
ment of territorial departments and divisions in the United States, 
that everything of importance I could find on file in the War Depart- 
ment relating to it is given in full in this printed communication, 
Senate Document 42. 

Senator Hitchcock. But we understood from that document that 
the matters had been before the department, and that there had been 
two sides to it there, and that there had been various views. 

Gen. Murray. There haxe been in times past; at present there is 
but one, so far as I laiow. My whole views on the subject and every- 
thing in connection with the views that were heretofore given in the 
War Department you will find fully set forth in my recommendation 
to the Chief of Staff and its appendices in this document. There is 
absolutely everything here that I could find of importance in the War 
Department bearing on the subject, in just the shape I presented the 
matter to the Secretary when the new scheme was adopted. 

Senator Chamberlain. Pardon me just a moment, General, but 
it appears to me that the establishment of these divisional head- 
quarters sets up a sort of bureaucracy; that it is a sort of interme- 
diary between the War Department, which is the head of this Army 
system, and the departmental system, which will add to rather than 
diminish the amount of work. 

Gen. Murray. Far from adding to it, it reduces it very much. 
It cuts out the work of all the extra administrative places. That is, 
we had nine administrative departments, and administrative work 
was done at those nine places. These are now reduced to three, and 
in reducing from nine to three we very much reduce the number of 
people heretofore required to do tlie administrative work under the 
present departmental system. 

Senator Hitchcock. While you are on that, General, can you, on 
this item, show where this $30,000 saving in rent is ? 

Gen. Murray. That was obtained from the Quartermaster General. 

Senator Hitchcock. Could you insert, when you go over your 
hearing, that information ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes; I could find exactly where the reduction in 
rental was made and insert that. 

wSenator Hitchcock. I ask that question because I happen to know 
that you are paying rental for headcjuarters of the division in Chicago, 
and you are vacating between GO and 75 per cent of the building that 
the Government owns in Omaha, which is worth something like half 
a million dollars. You have a Government building there that the 
War Department owns, a three-story stone building, on a corner, 
surroimdcd by light on all sides, the building served by an elevator, 
and you are vacating, I think, 70 per cent of that building, and 
taking those men to Chicago to put them into rented quarters, and 
I would hke to know what 3'ou are going to do with the vacated 
building, and how your rental proposition is going to be in New York, 
Chicago, and San Francisco, where I understand you own no buildings. 

Senator Bristow. Would not tliat go to the point of location of 
the division, rather than to the consolidation of the divisions? 



TERKITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 13 

Senator Hitchcock. I think the committee ought to have a 
statement. I will ask you, now, do you know what the rental you 
would pay in Chicago is ? 

Gen. Murray. Nothing. Divisional headc[uarters will be located 
in the same Government building department headc{uarters has been 
located in. The matter of rental of buildings for department and 
division headquarters is entireh^ within the province of the Quarter- 
master General, and I do not know where such buildings are rented, 
nor do I know the reasons why the bureau chiefs, or the chiefs of 
supply departments, retain offices in one place or in another. So 
far as I know, they purchase supi)lies in those places where they can 
make purchases to the best interests of the Government. Now, 
when considering questions of rental and supply, as for instance the 
question of rental of buildings for supply departments in Chicago as 
against their nonrental in Omaha, it would be a question of the quantity, 
quality, and price of supplies that could be procured in Omaha and 
the cost of transportation from Omaha to the places Avhere those 
supplies would be needed, as against what you could get the same 
supplies for in Chicago and transport them to the places where 
needed. Those two questions would have to be considered together 
in order to tell whether it would be to the interests of the Govern- 
ment to rent buildings for supply departments in Chicago or occupy 
an existing Government building in Omaha. As has been stated on 
page 49 of this letter (S. Doc. 42), the new scheme contemplates that: 

^Vith regard to necessary supplies for the Army, the purchase of these will be con- 
tinued, as heretofore, under charge of the chiefs of bureaus concerned. Such pur- 
chases are now made at points most advantageous to the Government, quality, price, 
and cost of transportation l)eing considered, and it is not thought that the places 
of purchase will be greatly affected by the new arrangement. 

In other words, the matter of supply should continue practically as 
heretofore, and bureau chiefs will donbtless make only such changes 
as in their opinion are deemed advisable in the best interests of the 
Government. 

Senator Chamberlain. It is only natural, though, General, in the 
smaller aspect of the case, that the purchases will be made at division 
headquarters eventually, because it is nearer to those actually in com- 
mand and having authority over the subject. 

Gen. Murray. I think not, if you will allow me. I think you will 
find that those purchases and purchasing agents will be left and dis- 
tributed over the country practically as they have been heretofore, 
and that no agent will be changed and no differences in purchases will 
be made at any place unless articles to be purchased can be bought at 
greater advantage to the Government elsewhere. 

Tiie Chairman. Unless economy to the Government will thereby 
result ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. Then you will file with the committee an item- 
ized statement showing how this rental of buildings is to be ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. Will you also file a statement as to rentals to 
be paid for divisional headquarters ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes; I can get that from the Quartermaster Gen- 
eral. 



14 TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 

(The statement referred to is as follows :) 

Comparative table showing saving in rentals under new scheme of territorial organization 
in the United States — Saving in the Philippines not yet ascertained. 



Present status. 


New status. 


Headquarters. 


Location. 


Rentals 
paid. 


Headquarters. 


Location. 


Rentals 
paid. 


Department of the 

East. 
Department of the 

Gulf. 
Department of the 

Lakes. 
Department of the 

Missouri. 
Department of 

Texas. 
Department of Da- 


Governors Island, 

N. Y. 
Atlanta, Ga 

Chicago, 111 

Omaha, Nebr 

San Antonio, Tex. 

St. Paul, Minn 

Denver, Colo 

Vancouver Bar- 
racks, Wash. 
San Francisco, Cal. 


1 $800. 00 
13,680.04 

{') 

18,210.00 

{') 
19,560.00 


Department of the 

East. 
Department of the 

Gulf. 
Department of the 

Lakes. 
Department of the 

Missouri. 
Department of 

Texas. 
Department of Da- 
kota. 
Department of the 

Colorado. 

Department of the 
Columbia. 

Department of Cal- 
ifornia. 
' Eastern Division 

Central Division 

Western Division... 

Total 


FortTotten, N. Y. 

Atlanta, Ga 

St. Paul, Minn.... 

Omaha, Nebr 

San Antonio, Tex. 
Discontinued 


(2) 
$5,600.44 


kota. 

Department of the 
Colorado. 

Department of the 
Columliia. 

Department of Cal- 
ifornia. 


Discontinued (of- 
fices of the pur- 
chasing commis- 
sary at Denver 
to be retained). 

Vancouver Bar- 
racks, Wash. 

Fort Miley, Cal.... 

Governors Island, 
N. Y. 

Chicago, 111 

San Francisco, Cal. 


1,500.00 


Total . . 


52,250.04 
26,660.44 


(2) 






Saving in 


25, 589. 60 


United 

States. 




(2) 
19,560.00 




26, 660. 44 











1 Per annum for 1 room. New York City. 



2 Public quarters. No rental. 



The rentals above stated are annual and are furnished by the Quartermaster General's OfHce. The 
saving to be effected by office rooms surrendered at headquarters of departments in the Philippines are 
not now known, but it is estimated that this saving will be more than enough to cause the aggregate 
saving to amount to $30,000. 

Senator Hitchcock. As to this matter of clerical hire, that seems 
to be the largest saving ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. The saving on that is estimated at $165,000 
a year. 

Gen. Murray. Now, if you will turn to Exhibit No. 5, on page 46 
of- Document 42, I will be glad to give you details in regard to the 
saving to be made in clerks and messengers. 

Senator Hitchcock. Wliat I wanted to ask about that is this: I 
have seen the items of how you expect to make the saving, but I 
notice you do not propose to make this saving at once. You propose 
to transport all of the clerks to the division headquarters from the 
department headquarters. 

Gen. Murray. No; if you will read the latter part of the Secretary 
of War's letter, as given on page 2 of Document 42, you will see that 
that is not the case. The letter says it is the intention, "to direct 
that these surplus clerks and messengers be temporarily distributed 
at the headquarters of divisions and departments and at other places 
where their services may be of value." 

Senator Hitchcock. So that they are all to be retained for the 
present ? 

Gen. MuRRAY^ And discharged only as their times expire, reducing 
the number with the expiration of the terms of service of the clerks 



TEERITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY, 15 

or as vacancies occur from any cause. We could not, without hard- 
ship to these clerks and messengers, at once discharge all found to be 
surplus under the new organization. 

Senator Hitchcock. Are they employed for a given time ? 

Gen. Murray. I am not absolutely certain as to how they are 
employed. The majority, I think, are permanently, the rest tempo- 
rarily; but vacancies due to resignations and casualties occur in both 
groups continually, and these vacancies are not [to be filled. 

Senator Hitchcock. The Secretary uses this language: 

It is not desired to discharge at once those faithful employees who have devoted 
many years to the service of the Government, and the necessary reduction will be 
made by not filling vacancies which occur. 

I inferred from that that it was not intended to discharge clerks, 
but simplv, when they resigned or died, their vacancies would not be 
filled. 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. What I wanted to ask is, have you made any 
computation as to the actual reduction that would naturally occur, 
either by death or resignation ? 

Gen. Murray. No, sir; it was assumed that by July, 1912, the 
greater part of the surplus clerks would have been absorbed. 

Senator Hitchcock. Is not that a very large number of vacancies 
to occur within a year from ordinary causes ? 

Gen. Murray. Possibly so. The number of surplus clerks and 
messengers that will be made by the new scheme, as estimated by 
myself, is given on page 47 of the document. 

Senator Bristow. Can you transfer these clerks to the department 
in Washington ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes, sir. 

Senator Bristow. They would soon be absorbed, then? 

Gen. Murray. Yes; and this absorption will be made as fast as 
it can be. 

Senator Bristow. A great many vacancies occur among 600 or 
800 clerks, as tliere necessarily must be in the War Department? 

Gen. Murray. Yes; I have not undertaken to calculate exactly 
when this total number of vacancies will occur and do not believe 
such a calculation possible. The general instructions of the Secre- 
tary of War are not to fill such vacancies as they occur. Exactly 
how long it will take to absorb all surplus clerks and messengers can 
not be calculated or foretold. 

Senator Hitchcock. So that this large item of saving, $165,000, 
which is given as the chief item of the saving, is not one which will 
occur in a year ? 

Gen. Murray. It may occur in a year. The absorption of surplus 
clerks and messengers will occur gradually, and when this has been 
completed the corresponding annual saving will thereafter be made. 
In addition to this saving in clerks and messengers, the attention of 
the committee should be invited to the number of officers that would 
be saved, or rendered surplus, by the new organization. 

Senator Hitchcock. I understand you return 35 officers to the 
service ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. I found that after an officer had been 
assigned to each of the principal staff positions at both division and 
department headquarters under the new scheme, there were remain- 



16 TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 

ing from the num})er of ofRcers now assignetl at department head- 
quarters only 66 officers. Assuming that one-half of these 66 officers 
will be needed as assistants in the new scheme at division head- 
quarters, this would give us a saving of 33 officers under the new scheme 
and possibly we will be able to save even more. 

Senator Bristow. Let me understand how these officers are saved. 
I'ou return them to their regiments ? 

Gen. Murray. Return them to their regiments or put them at 
other work. It amounts to getting so many extra officers to return 
to their regiments or for other work. 

Senator Hitchcock. There are 35 returned to their regiments ? 
How many will be sent from department headquarters and division 
heackjuarters ? 

Gen. Murray. As I stated, after assigning an officer to each of 
the principal, stait positions at both division and department head- 
quarters under the new scheme, I found there would be 66 surplus 
oflicers available for assignment to duty as assistants at division 
headquarters or who might return to their regiments in case they 
were not needed as assistants. 

Senator Hitchcock. Yes. 

Gen. Murray. Of those 66, I do not think that more than 30 
will be required for duty as assistants at division headquarters. 
It has not yet been fully decided by the bureau chiefs as to exactly 
how many officers will be needed as assistants to the principal officers 
of their departments at division headquarters. If I can ascertain 
this, I will insert in my hearing the exact number of these surplus 
officers that will be needed as assistants. In the Judge Advocate's 
Department alone I found that after a judge advocate had been 
assigned at each division headquarters (none being assigned to 
department lieadquarters under the new scheme) there were five 
officers detailed from the line, wdio could be returned to duty with 
their regiments; this making a saving of five officers in that one 
department. Exactly how many will be saved in all departments 
has not, as stated, as yet been determined. 

Senator Hitchcock. Have you had any experience with division 
headciuarters of this sort ? 

Gen. Murray. The new division headquarters will be practically 
the same as our department headquarters of to-day, except that 
there will be a little more work at the new division headquarters, 
due to the consolidation of the administrative work heretofore 
done in two or three, separate department headquarters in one 
division headquarters. We have had experience with just such 
work as will be done at division headquarters for about 100 years. 

Senator Hitchcock. The division headquarters not only corre- 
sponds with the departments but also with the War Department here 
in Washington ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. So that in that respect it is different from the 
department lieadquarters ? 

Gen. Murray. No; it varies slightly in regard to the transmission 
of correspondence from the posts. Now the correspondence goes 
from tjie posts direct to department headquarters, and then to the 
War Department, when necessary. The vast majority of it never 
gets beyond department headquarters. With the adoption of the 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 17 

divisional organization we have simply put the department out of the 
channel for correspondence relating to administrative work, and will 
send t.hrougii the department only tJrat wbicb. relates directly to tlie 
discipline, training, and instruction of the personnel. 

Senator IIitciicock. I am calling your attention to a distinction 
in the v/ork of the department and division headquarters. You say 
they are the same. But the department lieadquarters has corre- 
spondence only with tJie posts ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. While tlie di^dsion headquarters has corre- 
spondence wit]), the posts, with tlie department commanders, and with 
the War Department, so that it has a larger circle. 

Gen. Murray. It is only a question of sending certain communica- 
tions from posts t]\rough department headcpiarters and certain otb.ers 
relating to matters witTi which department commanders have nothing 
to do direct to division headquarters. In the eastern division, as 
proposed, there are two departments. Certain matters relating to 
discipline and instruction of the troops will go from posts through or 
to the tv/o department headquarters, and others relating to supply, 
etc., direct to division headquarters. In the eastern division, as I 
remember it, there are 69 posts. I am not certain as to whether or 
not they are all fully garrisoned, but from all that are garrisoned com- 
munications will pass to department and division headquarters as 
stated. 

Senator Hitchcock. Yes. 

Gen. Murray. All communications relating to administrative mat- 
ters originating at these garrisoned posts would be sent direct to divi- 
sion headquarters for necessary action, and all relating to discipline, 
training, and instruction of the troops to department headquarters. 
At tlie present time there is in existence what is known as a Coast 
Artillery district, which has almost identically the same relation to 
the department to-day as the department will have to the division 
when organized. The Coast Artillery district is a military district 
in which the commanding officer of the district supervises the tac- 
tical work and instruction of the Coast Artillery troops in his district; 
while all communications relating to administrative matters origi- 
nating at the posts in such districts pass direct from the posts to 
department headquarters, and only such communications as relate 
to discipline and instruction and training of the troops pass through 
the district commander. This is exactly the relation it is now pro- 
posed that the department and department commander shall bear 
to the division and division commander. The functions and duties 
of a department commander in their relations to the divisions and 
the division commander under the new scheme being almost iden- 
tically the same as those of Coast Artillery district commander to 
departments and department commanders at the present time. 
Under the new scheme, therefore, the department commanders will 
have a class of work which is almost identical with the class of work 
now being done by artillery district commanders. 

Senator Hitchcock. Let me direct your attention to this question: 
Arizona is in the division whose headquarters will be at San Fran- 
cisco ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

101857—11 2 



18 TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 

Senator Hitchcock. At present, if a communication from Arizona 
were sent to Washington, it would get a repl}'^ in quite a short time. 
Suppose it has to go from Arizona to San Francisco and from there to 
Was^iington and from Washington back to San Francisco and from 
San Francisco to Arizona, would there not be a great v/aste of time 
and red tape in that case — circumlocution ? 

Gen. Murray. It would of course take longer for a communication 
to go from Arizona, by way of San Francisco, to Washington and 
return than to go direct from Arizona to Washington and. return; but 
this is p,n exceptional case and it should be remembered that the vast 
majority of communications from posts and department head- 
quarters to division headquarters will be acted on at division head- 
quarters and not be sent to Washington. The circumlocution would 
therefore amount to but little, and it is hardly worth considering in 
comparison with the benefits to the Government to be gained under 
the new organization. 

Senator Hitchcock. Was not that one of the reasons why it was 
not approved, because it was found that it produced delay and cir- 
cumlocution in the War Department? 

Gen. Murray. That was one reason advanced, I believe, when the 
divisions were abolished in 1901; but of this I am not certain. 

Senator Hitchcock. The reason I asked you that question as to 
whether you had correctly estimated the number of officers and cler- 
ical help at division headquarters, was that jou had stated that there 
never had been a division headquarters of this sort proposed or 
established. 

Gen. Murray. No. 

Senator Hitchcock. That it had never been before established. 

Gen. Murray. No; what I stated was, the whole scheme with 
division and departments organized as proposed has never before 
been established. The division headquarters, such as it is now pro- 
posed to establish, if considered alone, has been established and 
abolished a number of times. 

Senator Hitchcock. Yes; but the division having complete 
administrative functions had never been established before as you 
proposed it? 

Gen. Murray. No; I did not state that. 

Senator Hitchcock. When was that established ? 

Gen. Murray. Such a division was established in 1865 and was in 
existence from that time until 1891. 

Senator Hitchcock. Then I understand that the departments 
were complete, as well as the divisions ? 

Gen. Murray. So they were, but at that time all communications 
from posts were sent first to department headquarters, and when 
necessary from there to division headquarters for action of the divi- 
sion commander. The fact that administrative papers were acted 
upon at both department and division headquarters is understood to 
have been one of the reasons given for abolishing divisions in 1891 — 
it being held that there were too many administrative functions at 
division and department headquarters taken together. 

Senator Hitchcock. But I understand what you now propose as 
division headquarters, giving them the absolute authority in place 
of the department headquarters, has never been tried before ? 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 19 

Gen. Murray. It has always been tried in time of war or in the 
field. Then the organization scheme is identically the same as that 
now proposed. 

Senator Bristow. May I inquire, is the purpose of this inquiry to 
ascertain wiiether the War Department is carrying out properly the 
detailed administration of its affairs ? It seems to me from the line 
of this inquiry that we are going into the details of the organization 
of the War Department. That is really not our province, unless there 
is some extravagance of some kind, and this seems to be for the pur- 
pose of economizing, instead of enlarging the expenditure. 

Senator Hitchcock. That is the purpose, but the fact is that there 
has been a controversy in the W^ar Department for many years, 
having advocates on both sides, and history shows that they have 
changed back and forth from one system to the other, and that there 
has been a strong difference of opinion among prominent ofhcers 
and eminent men have differed witli each other, and the^^ have even 
changed tlieir opinions and reversed themselves. I thought if it 
was a matter of such importance, and meant economy and efficiency, 
it was a matter tliat ought to be brought to hearings, and ought to 
be brought down to testimony; and the reason I was asking Gen. 
Murray so carefully as to those who had taken a view contrary to 
his, %vas for the purpose of having those men brought here so that 
we might hear their side. General, you are, as I understand it, one 
of tlie strong advocates in the War Department of this method which 
they now propose to inaugurate ■? 

Senator Bristow. You will have to pardon me for my ignorance 
on that, because this is new business to me. As I gather from the 
line of inquiry, there are nine divisions now ? 

Senator Hitchcock. Nine departments. 

Senator Bristow. Nine departments, and each one performing 
practically the same duties ? 

Gen. ^luRRAY. With full administrative staffs at each department 
headquarters. It is proposed 

Senator Bristow. To consolidate them into three ? 

Gen. Murray. Into three divisions with full administrative staffs, 
and seven departments with reduced staffs, the administrative staffs 
for the divisions and departments being identically the same as those 
of officers who would have appropriate rank to command depart- 
ments or divisions, or like commands in war. That is, the staff of the 
territorial division commander in peace will be the same as that of 
a tactical division commander in war, and the staff of a department 
commander in time of peace will be that of a brigade commander, an 
officer of the same rank, in time of war. 

The Chairman. I would like to return for a second to the ques- 
tion raised by Senator Hitchcock about the circumlocution under 
the old system. That system was objected to. As an illustration, 
let us assume that a post quartermaster had raised some local admin- 
istrative question. Under the old system he wrote to the quarter- 
master at department headquarters ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

The Chairman. The latter made an indorsement on the post 
quartermaster's communication giving his views, and then sent it to 
the quartermaster at division headquarters, who forwarded it to the 
War Department? 



20 TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

The Chairman. The question originally raised had then passed 
through two intermediate channels, which required a good deal of 
work? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

The Chairman. Under the proposed system, as I understand it — 
I am making this statement for the purpose of having Gen. Murray 
correct me if I am wrong — the quartermaster at a post will take up 
his administrative cjuestions directly with the division headquarters? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

The Chairman. And they will communicate with Washington, if 
necessary, so that it will be as simple, practically, as it is to-day, 
because the quartermaster of the post takes it up with the depart- 
ment cpiartermaster, and he communicates directly. There is no 
loss of time under the proposed arrangement. Am I right in that ? 

Gen. Murray. The only loss of time that would come would be in 
such a case as Senator Hitchcock lias referred to, where a communi- 
cation from a post down in Arizona would have to go to the division 
headquarters in San Francisco and from there to Washington and 
then return. 

The Chairman. Of course it is understood that many of these 
questions would never reach the War Department, because they 
would be settled by the division quartermaster? 

Gen. Murray. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. Formerly tliey would have been settled by 
the department quartermaster. 

The Chairman. Largely so. I do not know whether this division 
quartermaster will have any increased authority over that of the 
department quartermaster. Gen. Murra}" can answer that. 

Gen. Murray. No; he will have the same functions as the depart- 
ment quartermaster now; although the Quartermaster General is 
undertaking to give the chief quartermasters of departments now, 
and of course will give to the chief quartermasters of divisions in 
future, more power or more authority than has been heretofore 
granted them. In other words, he is undertaking to decentralize the 
work of his department a,s mvich as possible ; or to get as much of that 
work as is possible done at depots and at division headquarters, and 
require as little as possible to come to the War Department. 

The Chairman. You might resume. General, where you are. 

Gen. Murray. You will find, I think, that in this document, I have 
fully explained the reasons for my views for changing from the pres- 
ent departmental scheme to the divisional scheme as proposed. On 
page 48 of the document is a memorandum giving a synopsis of the 
changes made by the proposed organization and a general statement 
of the effect of these changes in localities where department head- 
quarters are now located. I would invite special attention to tliis 
memorandum, and as it gives a synopsis of the whole scheme, I would 
like to read it hurriedly. 

Senator Bristow. We hardly have time, now. We can read that. 

Gen. Murray. Very well. 

Senator Hitchcock. In securing this statement you are to pro- 
cure for us, could you make that a complete showing as to rentals 
now paid for departmental headquarters, and what you propose to 
pay for divisional headquarters ? 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY, 21 

Gen. Murray. Yes. I will include such a statement in my hear- 
ing. (See p. 14.) 

Senator Hitchcock. Would Lieut. Gen. Arthur MacArthur be 
a man who is familiar with the facts in this controversy ? 

Gen. l^iuRRAY. I should think not. He does not know anything 
about it, so far as I know. 

Senator Hitchcock. I had the impression that his testimony 
would be of value here, if we could have it. 

Gen. Murray. Of none whatever, that I know of. 

Senator Hitchcock. What would you sav about Lieut. Gen. Nelson 
A. Miles ? 

Gen. Murray. That his testimony would be of doubtful value- — — 

Senator Hitchcock. I am speaking now of the tactical effect of 
departments as distinguished from divisions? 

Gen. Murray. Well, all I can say is you would, of course, have to 
estimate the value of their testimony for yourselves, if they were 
called. I think if the committee will study this Document 42 care- 
fully they can get from it all of the information they want on the 
subject. The information therein given, it appears to me, makes an 
almost prima facie case of the necessity for the change from the 
present to the proposed organization in the best interests of the Gov- 
ernment. We reduce nine administrative departments to three 
administrative divisions and can do the same administrative work 
as is now done witli a much less number of officers, clerks, and mes- 
sengers, and at considerably less expense to the Government for 
clerk and messenger hire, and for rental and commutation of quarters 
for officers. The scheme will not only release a number of officers 
now detailed on staff duty for duty with their regiments, but it will 
also enable the department commanders to do work that they have 
never been able heretofore to do, that is to properly supervise the 
tactical work of their commands, and give more attention to matters 
pertaining to discipline and instruction. 

vSenator Hitchcock. I understand you are a strong partisan of 
that idea. 

Gen. Murray. I am a strong partisan in this, that I fully recognized 
alter much experience both as a tine and staff officer and from observa- 
tion during nearly 40 years of service, that the territorial administra- 
tion of the Army was not being carried on either in the best interests 
of economy to the Government or in tlie best interest of efficiency of 
the Anny. Having stated this verbally to the Chief of Staff', Gen. 
Wood, I was requested by him to prepare a \\ritten memorandum on 
the subject. I then made a complete study of everything of im- 
portance that I could find of record bearing on the subject in the 
War Department and wrote the memorandum which is given with its 
appendices in this document — Senate Document No. 42. 

Senator Hitchcock. But everything you have there is in favor of 
what you believe in; and yet this question was up in 1907, and it was 
in 1903, and at other dates, and they decided it in an opposite way; 
and I want to get from you, if possible, the names of those officers or 
officials in the department or outside of the dc]:)artment who have 
participated in these discussions heretofore, and held contrary views 
to those you advance. 

Gen. Murray. I do not know how much discussion was made of it 
in 1891, but from the extract from the letter of the Secretary of War 



22 TEREITOEIAL DIVISIONS IN THE AEMY. 

to the Adjutant General it would appear that not much study of the 
matter had been made when the divisions were abolished at that 
time. From this Senate document you can ascertain the names of 
officers who were in the War Department and took part in the dis- 
cussion of the matter in 1903. From it you will also see that in 1903 
a board of officers, of wliich Gen. Corbin was president and the pres- 
ent Judge Advocate General the recorder, recommended a territorial 
organization similar to what I have recommended here; that this 
recommendation was referred by the Secretaiy of War to a divison 
of the General Staff, of which Col. Mackenzie (afterwards Chief of 
Engineers) was chief; that this division of the General Staff, after 
several months' study on the subject, carried the recommendation 
of the Corbin Board a little further in detail and recommended 
almost identically what I have recommended, except that they 
recommended four instead of three divisions and for the territorial 
subdivisions, departments, and districts, instead of divisions and 
departments, as I have. You will further see that Gen. Chaffee 
two days after his arrival in Washington turned down the recom- 
mendations on which the Corbin Board and General Staff division 
had worked for months. As to what were Gen. Chaffee's reasons 
for turning down the recommendations of board and division I 
have heard only two given. One was that commercial interests 
of different places would be affected by it, and there would be oppo- 
sition to it from these interests. The other w^as that the change in 
organization if adopted would bring too great a hardship on clerks 
and messengers it would be necessary to discharge. You will also 
see from the document that Gen. Chaffee, being unwilling to adopt 
the system as recommended by the Corbin Board and the division of 
the General Staff, took what might be called a middle course, by 
reestablishing the territorial divisions, but giving them mainly super- 
visory functions and leaving the departments with the same full 
administrative staffs they had theretofore had. 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that Gen. Chaffee admitted that 
it was more expensive by the system he recommended ? It is my 
recollection that he admitted that it would cost at least $20,000 
more a year for each department. 

Gen. Murray. Yes; that is my recollection. 

Senator Hitchcock. Can you furnish the committee with that 
statement of Gen. Chaffee ? 

Gen. Murray. It is given in the document on page 35. What I 
have stated regarding Gen. Chaffee's reasons for turning down the 
recommendations of the Corbin board and General Staff Division I 
learned from inquiry of officers in the War Department at the time 
that was done. His reasons for recommending the organization 
established in 1903 are given on page 31 of the document. 

The Chairman. What you refer to is on page 35. 

Senator Hitchcock. Gen. Chaffee overruled the General Staff at 
that time ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes ; I have referred to that on page 7 of the docu- 
ment. The recommendations made by Gen. Chaffee regarding a 
territorial organization are given on pages 31-35 of the document. 

Senator Hitchcock. That was in 1907 ? 

Gen. Murray. No; in 1903. 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 23 

Senator Hitchcock. Then in 1907, when Gen. Corbin suggested 
this change, who overruled him ? 

Gen. MuEiiAY. Gen. Bell, who was Chief of Staff at the time 

Senator Hitchcock. Gen. Bell overruled him ? 

Gen. AIuRRAY. Yes; that is my recollection 

Senator Hitchcock. And Geii. Bell is in the Philippines and we 
can not get at him. Who besides Gen. Bell considered that matter « 

Gen. .vluREAY. Nobody, so far as I know. No; I am wrong in 
that; as 1 now remember it the letter was referred, and I think that 
a discussion of it is given in the document. 

Senator Hitchcock. To the Secretary of War? 

Gen. Murray. No; it was sent to a division of the General Staff 
and this division reported against it. The letter of Gen. Corbin and 
tlie report ot the division on it are given on pages 38-42 of the 
document. 

The Chairman. Gen. Bell was Chief of Staff, but he was not per- 
form mg the functions of his office at that time. Gen. Barry was 
Acting Chief of Staff. "^ 

Gen Murray Yes. The letter of Gen. Corbin was addressed to 
Lren. \iQ[[, as will be seen on page 35 of the document. This letter 
was referred to a division of the General Staff, and the report of the 
division signed by Gen. Barry, Acting Chief of Staff, is given on 
pages C58-42 ol the document. On recommendations made in this 
report, signed by Gen. Barry, territorial di\asions were abolished 
and an organization with departments only which has existed up to' 
the present time was established. 

Senator Hitchcock You say Gen. Corbin was overruled at that 
tmie, in 1907, just as the General Staff had been overruled in 1903 ? 

Gen. Murray. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. And you say it was Gen. Bell who overruled 
mm? 

A ?-^^* ^n^^i^'^/o I^,^^ow appears that it was Gen. Barry, who was 
Acting Chief of Staff at the time. Gen. Bell was Chief of Staff, but 
he was evidently absent from Washington at the time 

Senator Hitchcock. Where is Gen. Barry now? 

Gen. Murray. He is superintendent at West Point. 

The Chairman. Would you like to hear further from Gen. Murray « 

Senator Hitchcock. I think if he furnishes these statements we 
nave spoken of that is all I care for. 

The Chairman. Will you be here Tuesday, General, ^vith these 
statements ? 

Gen. Murray. Will the committee want any further statement 
from me ? 

The Chairman. If you will send us those statements, I do not think 
It IS necessary for you to come personally. 

Senator Hitchcock. Will you please state also where the Govern- 
ment owns buildings, either for departments or divisions « 

Gen. Murray. I will try to get that. (See statement, p. 14.) 

(At 12.15 o'clock p. m. the committee adjourned until Tuesday, 
June 27, 1911, at 10.30 o'clock a.m.) ^ 



24 TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 

TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1911. 

United States Senate, 
Committee on Military Affairs, 

Washington, D. C. 
The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m. 

Present: Senators du Pont (chairman), Warren, Briggs, Taylor, 
Hitchcock, and Williams. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. LEONARD WOOD, CHIEF OF STAFF, 
UNITED STATES ARMY, ACCOMPANIED BY MAJ. JOHNSON 
HAGOOD, ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF. 

The Chairman. General, this is a meeting of the committee to 
consider the reorganization of divisions and departments, and we 
would be glad if you would give us your views on tliat whole subject. 

Gen. Wood, llie motive in l,)ringing about tliis reorganization was 
a double one. Military efhciency and economy were the two things 
aimed at. The military efficiency, we believe, will be gained by 
freeing the department commanders from a large portion of their 
administrative duties in the way of supply and slielter and construc- 
tion of roads, walks, sewers, and the multiple administrative details 
which they have been charged with under the present arrangement — 
charged with to such an extent that they have had very little time 
to devote to the inspection and instruction of their troops. 

The Chairman. General, may I interrupt you ? 

Gen. Wood. Certainly. 

The Chairman. As 1 understand it, they have all these little 
questions about condemnation of property, do they not, in the 
Quartermaster's Department, appointing boards, and all those 
things, v/'hich are very tedious ? 

Gen. Wood. Yes; they have all the administrative details. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Gen. Wood. Concerning the various staff departments. We 
believed that the freeing of the department commanders from these 
details would result in their time being devoted to the purely military 
work, and we would get a gain in military efficiency. We were con- 
fident from an examination of the situation that we could effect a very 
material economy in money and in personnel through the proposed 
arrangement of four divisions, including the Philippines — three in 
the United States — and seven departments, placing in the division 
headquarters all the details of administration and supply, and the 
higher inspection, and reducing the staff of the department command- 
ers to their two aides, and an adjutant general, and giving them a 
limited clerical force, an average of about six or seven clerks at each 
headquarters. Tins plan was taken up last summer and gone over 
very carefully by Gen. Murray and other officers of tlie General Staff. 
It was presented to the Presitlent this sj^ring ami by him approved, 
and the order was drawn as a purely administrative measure to be 
put in force on the 1st of July. 

The only motives influencing the War Department in any way were 
military efficienc}^ and economy. We believe that both will be 
improved. 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY, 25 

The Chairman. The economies which you hope to effect amount to 
over $250,000, do they not, per annum? 

Gen. Wood. We state, I think, $240,000 or $250,000. The amount 
is o;iven in this re])ort, and all the details are here. 

The Chairman. Yes; there was an indefinite quantity left for light, 
and so forth. 

Gen. Wood. Yes; but that will be a gradual economy, because we 
do not want to discharge any of these clerks, who are mosth^ worthy 
men; but the idea is to transfer them to other departments and grad- 
ually reduce our clerical force. 

The Chairman. They could be transferred to Wasliington ? 

Gen. Wood. Yes; they could be transferred to any other depart- 
ment of the Government. They are civil service employees, all of 
them. 

The principal fear which I have found expressed in the people inter- 
ested in these various departments has been based upon the mistaken 
idea that we were going to change the system of purchase and suppl}'". 
Department limits have nothing to do with that. For instance, if a 
man can buy certain supplies for the Army cheaper in New Orleans, 
he will buy those supplies in New Orleans for the troops in the Philip- 
pines. In other words, the purchase of supplies has nothing to do 
"wdth department or division hmits. 

The Chairman. On the floor of the Senate Senator Bacon raised 
the point that this proposed new arrangement of divisions and depart- 
ments might result in depriving the South of an adequate share of the 
expenditures of the War Department. I was not present that day, 
but I understood that was his point. 

Senator Warren. He brought that up in a general way. He 
wanted us to consider that. 

Senator Williams. South of a certain line, thereby excluding the 
Southwest, the Southeast, and the South. 

Senator Warren. He said these three locations were all on a line, 
and he wanted to know why one of the three was not located in the 
South. 

The Chairman. Yes; I thought it proper to refer to that. 

Gen. Wood. We took New York because that is rather an adminis- 
trative center, has been an administrative center, of our mihtary 
establishment on the Atlantic for a long time, and we have to-day 
Governors Island, with a very well constructed group of buildings 
and headquarters, and all the appurtenances necessary for division 
head(iuarters, and we continued it for that reason and for that 
reason only. There was no object in that other than that we had a 
complete plant there, and it had been there for a good many years, 
and we continued it there. 

At Chicago we own a building, and for that reason, and the fact that 
headc[uarters were established tliere, we selected Chicago. The ques- 
tion has been raised as betv»een Chicago and Omaha. Either one 
would be very satisfactory. We own a building in each place. 

In San Francisco we rent a building, but that is about the center of 
the Pacific coast. That was the reason we kept those three places. 
At two of them we own a plant, and the other is almost in the exact 
center of the Pacific coast. 

Department headquarters at San Antonio and Atlanta have not 
been changed. They continue just as before, and the purchasing 



26 TEKRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 

agencies throughout the South are just the same as before, and there 
is no intention in any way to modify any purchasing agency, and 
there is no movement of troops involved in this. It is purely a 
rearrangement of the territory over which military authority extends, 
in no way affecting the purchase of supplies. 

Senator Briggs. Or the number of troops? 

Gen. Wood. Or the number of troops. It is really a very small 
affair when you look at it as a whole. The main thing is the m.ove- 
ment of a certain number of employees from one station to another, 
and that has been the common fate of all our Army clerks for many 
years, because we send them to the Philippines and we give them 
$200 a year more when they go out there, and they are supposed to 
go or to leave the service. 

Senator Briggs. What do you give them, mileage or actual trans- 
portation ? 

Gen. Wood. When they travel we give them actual expenses, 
transportation, and a per diem. 

The Chairman. For food ? 

Gen. Wood. For food; yes. 

Senator Briggs. I did not know whether they had an allowance 
for baggage or not. 

Gen. Wood. They have a freight allowance, a baggage allowance, 
and they have a very liberal scale of allowances. I forget just what 
they are now, but the per diem is about $4.50 a day, I think. 

Senator Briggs. I know that if the conditions are not more liberal 
than they were in my day it would bankrupt a clerk, or a second lieu- 
tenant either, to travel with our troops to the Philippines. 

Gen. Wood. It is pretty hard. That is one thing we are trying to 
reduce as much as possible, this movement to the Philippines. 

Senator Hitchcock. Will you make a little historical review of 
these various changes that have occurred and the controversies that 
have existed in the department over this matter ? 

Gen. Wood. I have summarized them in this pamphlet pretty fully. 

Senator Hitchcock. Yes; I see that you have. Now, to go back 
over that; in 1907 the present order was established? 

Gen. Wood. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. And who was the authority at that time who 
established this present order? 

Gen. Wood. In 1907, Gen. Bell was Chief of Staff, I think. 

Senator Hitchcock. Gen. Bell? 

Gen. Wood. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. At that time was there any effort to install 
the system which 3^ou now propose ? 

Gen. Wood. I had recommended it while in the Philippines as a 
better administrative system, in my opinion, but I do not know that 
it was seriously considered at that time. 

Senator Hitchcock. At that time you say you do not know whether 
it was seriously considered; but at any rate. General Bell was the 
authority who installed the present system ? 

Gen. Wood. He was the Chief of Staff, and I presume upon his 
advice it was done. 

Senator Hitchcock. And it was then submitted to President Taft, 
who was then Secretary of War, in 1907 ? 

Gen. Wood. Yes. 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 27 

The Chairman. The authority really was the Secretary of War. 

Senator Hitchcock. The authority was President Taft, who was 
then Secretary of War, who approved the present system ? 

Gen. Wood. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. What has occurred smce that time to cause 
a change in the method ? 

Gen. Wood. An investigation of the method has shown, in our opin- 
ion, a very great and unnecessary assemblage of officers and clerks at 
department headquarters, a number far in excess of what is required 
by the administrative duties which they have to perform, and the 
imposition upon the department commander of duties which have 
practically so occupied his time as to deprive him of proper oppor- 
tunity to visit, stay with, instruct, and inspect his troops. 

Senator Hitchcock. Now that duty you propose to impose upon 
the division commander ? 

Gen. Wood. The dutj^ now, of administration, goes principally to 
the division commander. 

Senator Hitchcock. If it is a trifling duty, and unimportant, why 
should it be imposed upon the higher officer ? 

Gen. Wood. It is not trifling or unimportant, but in the case of the 
department commanders it took most of their time. 

Senator Hitchcock. I notice in this memorandum you speak of 
this proposed establishment of territorial divisions as analogous to 
what would exist in time of war. 

Gen. Wood. The division in time of war is the administrative unit. 
The brigade is not an administrative unit. 

Senator Hitchcock. At the close of our last war, as I remember, 
we had something like 80 divisions. How can you reconcile the idea 
of three great territorial divisions out of all proportion to operations 
with a condition of war, which might involve 70 or 80 divisions ? 

Gen. Wood. The three great territorial divisions, including all the 
troops in them, are not up to the war strength of three divisions under 
the regulations. 

Senator Hitchcock. Yes; I understand that during these maneu- 
vers down in Texas you had located in a single department a complete 
division. 

Gen. Wood. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. So that there the greater, as you propose it, was 
actually included in the less in time of proposed military activity. 

Gen. Wood. The division was entirely exempt from the control of 
the department commander. He had no control of or connection with 
it whatever. 

The Chairman. Is there not a little confusion of terms creeping in 
there ? A division in time of war means two or three brigades. 

Gen. Wood. It means an aggregation of troops, in time of war, 
with no connection whatever with territory. 

The Chairman. But a division in time of peace is simply an admin- 
istrative unit ? 

Gen. Wood. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. Then it seems to me that the imposition of 
these duties upon the division commander is an evident error. 

Gen. Wood. We are imposing upon him the duties in time of peace 
that he would perform in time of war, the duties of supply, and so 
forth. 



28 TBREITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 

Senator Hitchcock. As I understand, you have divided the 
country into three ojreat divisions, and the idea that a single officer in 
time of war would command any unit which could be called a division 
over such a vast territoiy is obviously out of the question. 

Gen. Wood. In time of war those divisions would fall under the 
control of men commanding field armies, with the present organiza- 
tion. 

Senator Hitchcock. So that so far as the attempt to make the 
status of the peace establishment analogous to that of war is con- 
cerned, there is nothing in this territorial establishment of divisions 
which w^ould work to that end ? 

Senator Briggs. It is analogous only, as I understand it, in the 
matter of the executive duties. Of course you can not have an 
exactly analogous condition because the division means an entirely 
different thing. 

Senator Hitchcock. Yes. 

Senator Briggs. But the duties of a division commander in both 
cases may be somewhat the same. There are certain duties in time 
of war, certain routine matters of papers and administration, and 
all that, that have to be kept up in time of war as well as in time of 
peace. As I understand this thing, it simply puts those adminis- 
trative duties in the hands of the di^dsion commander instead of 
scattering them among the departments. 

Senator Hitchcock. But in time of war the division commander 
has command of his division, and it is not a divided responsibility. 

Senator Briggs. It is not now, is it ? 

Senator Hitchcock. It will be according to this. Some of the cor- 
respondence from the posts will go to the department commander 
and some will go to the division commander. It is all divided up. 

Senator Briggs. Would not some of the correspondence in time of 
war go to the brigade commander ? 

Senator Hitchcock. It would only go as a subordinate matter, but 
it is absoultely independent here. 

Gen. Wood. I do not think so. 

Senator Briggs. I do not understand it that way. 

Senator Hitchcock. Not only that; but I want to call your atten- 
tion to this, and ask whether it is going to work either for economy or 
expedition of operation to have, for instance, communications going 
from one of the posts on the Gulf up to New York to decide even an 
administrative operation ? Here is correspondence from the Gulf 
going up there, a matter of 1,500 miles, about something which might 
have been settled at the department headquarters, as it has been, 
witliin a few miles of the post. 

Gen. W^OOD. That is quite true, but 

Senator Hitchcock. Now it has to go clear to New York in this 
case and possibly back to Washington. 

Gen. Wood. That would have applied under the old department 
system. 

Senator Hitchcock. To this extent ? 

Gen. Wood. Not in this ])articular case, perhaps, quite to that 
extent. But with these methods there Avill not be a great deal of 
correspondence subject to that long travel. 

Senator Hitchcock. Here, for instance, in the Territory of Arizona, 
where several forts are located, matters which formerly went to the 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 29 

department headquarters, near by, will now go to San Francisco 
and to the division headquarters, and possibly across the continent 
to Washington and back again to the division headquarters in San 
Francisco, and from there to Arizona. 

Gen. Wood. They would have done that before, Mr. Senator. If 
you will look at the railroads running north and south from Colorado 
and Arizona, you will find that the mail has to go clear around by the 
Pacific coast to-day. Besides that, all communications to Wash- 
ington have to go to Washington, anyway. 

The Chairman. General, I observe in your remarks you have not 
mentioned the fact tliat tlie })roposed new state of things will relieve 
between 30 and 40 ofhcers, and enable them to be returned to their 
companies. I think that that statement is made in the letter of the 
Secretary of War. There will be about 35 of those officers. I con- 
sider that one of the most important features of the whole thing. 

Gen. Wood. I think so, sir. I do not believe, Senator Hitchcock, 
that there v/iil be any material difficulty about communications, 
because when we have any really important matter, in these days, 
that requires prompt action, we communicate it by telegraph. The 
things that go by mail are mostly the routine reports, not requiring 
any very prompt action. 

Senator Hitchcock. Do you think it is desirable to have those 
settled at a point 1,500 miles away in preference to having them 
settled at a ):)oint that is only 100 or 200 miles away? 

Gen. Wood. I think no great good can be brought about in any- 
thing without some small disadvantage and inconvenience. We 
have to submit to the lesser to gain the greater in this case. 

Senator Warren. As to your telegraph business, does this new 
reduction in commercial telegraphing render 3^our GoA'-ernment work 
any less expensive, or is that still done at the old Government rate ? 

Gen. Wood. I could not tell you that. 

Maj. Hagood. We have that rate; yes, sir. 

Senator Warren. But your rate is almost regardless of distance. 

Gen. Wood. Yes; we have a rate per word. 

Senator Warren. But these new rates for the blue letter and the 
red letter probably do not apply to Government business ? 

Gen. Wood. I could not say, but I do not think so. 

Senator Hitchcock. Going back again; in 1903 this question of 
the arrangement of division and department headquarters was an 
active one in the War Department? 

Gen. Wood. Yes. 

Senator Hitchcock. But no change was made at that time ? 

Gen. Wood. No; apparently not. 

Senator Hitchcock. Gen. Corbin recommended it ? 

Gen. Wood. I can not remember. 

Senator Hitchcock. Can 3^ou recall who it was that overruled his 
recommendation ? 

Gen. Wood. I can not. I w^as out of the country for 10 3'ears. I 
only heard the echoes of these things. Thc}^ were not submitted to 
me. We have had the division organization in the Philippines exactly 
as it is proposed here. 

Senator Hitchcock. But this question was up in 1903 ? 

Gen. Wood. I imagine, from this memorandum, that it was; but 
i have no personal knowledge of it. We had, once before an arrange- 



30 TEREITORTAL, DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY, 

ment of departments and divisions, but the cart was put before the 
horse. That is to say, the division commanders were assigned to the 
command of divisions, but they were given no staff, and given nothing 
to do, and that was dropped because it was entirely the reverse 
of what we are proposing now, and entirely the reverse of what takes 
place in war. Then you had a division commander charged with 
nothing except inspection. His staff was reduced to a minimum, 
about the sort of staff we are giving to the department commander 
now, and he had little to do with supply or construction or anything 
else, and his position was found to be unsatisfactory. 

The confusion with regard to the word "division" I think is a con- 
fusion of terms, more than anything else. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Gen. Wood. The word "division" is a very poor one to use as 
applied to a geographical area, and I think it would be a great deal 
better if we used the term "military district," or something of that 
sort, as they do in foreign countries, and left the word "division" for 
certain bodies of troops. 

Senator Hitchcock. I agree with you ; but it is even argued in this 
pamphlet that it is analogous to the division in time of war, which 
it seems to me is an absurdity. 

Gen. Wood. I do not think it is absurd, although it is stretching 
the analogy a little. The division in time of war is an administrative 
unit, and the division in time of peace we are trying to make an 
administrative unit. 

The Chairman. Could it not be defined by saying, instead of 
''analogous," "as near as possible in time of peace to the conditions 
that exist in time of war^' ? 

Gen. Wood. Yes; that would be a very good definition. 

Senator Williams. Has the selection of these three.places anything 
to do — I mean on the continent here — with the question of centers for 
mobilization; getting ready for war? 

Gen. Wood. Nothing. 

Senator Williams. It has nothmg to do with that question ? 

Gen. Wood. No, sir; the centers of mobilization would depend 
entirely upon the probable field of war, and we have worked out by 
the General Stafl^ during the last few years the mobilization centers 
for the militia in every State, and mobilization centers for every 
army, and the routmg orders — that is, by train — to move these troops 
to the coast of the Atlantic or to the northern frontier or to the Pacific 
coast, so that all the troops in the United States, whether militia 
or regular, have their definite areas for mobilization; and they are 
some of them remote, down in Texas or Arizona, and each has its little 
area, and from those places they are moved. 

Senator Hitchcock. I understood you to say that in New York 
you did not own the building for division headquarters ? 

Gen. Wood. No, sir; we do own a complete plant there on Governors 
Island. 

Senator Hitchcock. In Chicago do you own a building ? 

Gen. Wood. I am informed by the quartermaster that in Chicago 
we own a building. 

Senator Warren. I want to ask you a question about the War 
College. You speak of the staff having worked out your problem of 
mobilization, and so forth. 



TERRITORIAL, DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 31 

Gen. Wood. Yes. 

Senator Warren. I want to ask you this, and if you do not care 
to answer it, let it go; but the question is conthiually comino; up. 
Have the General Staff and the War College, in your opinion, justified 
the expectations entertained in regard to them in the good results 
that have followed from their organization ? 

Gen. Wood. Fully, in every particular. 

Senator Warren. So that, then, so far as you are concerned, you 
feel that they ought to be continued ? 

Gen. Wood. I tliink that their continuance is really vital to the 
progress of the Army. 

Senator Warren. I am asking the question, because in my service 
on this committee that has come up many times; and I know that 
some members of the old House Committee on Military Affairs were 
always of the opinion that a mistake had been made in the organiza- 
tion of tlie General Staff, and they rather favored the doing away with 
it or changing it very drastically, and I wanted to get your opinion. 
I have had that of each Chief of Staff before. 

Senator Hitchcock. You spoke of the Government owning a 
building at Chicago ? 

Gen. Wood. Yes, so I am informed. It was news to me. AVhen 
I was in Chicago they use:! to rent the Pullman Building. I have 
not been there for 15 or 16 years. I am informed we now own 
the building which is used there. I did not know it when I was talk- 
ing with you the other day. 

Senator Hitchcock. No. Are you referring to the Federal 
building in which the post office is located ? 

Gen. Wood. I do not know. 

Senator Warren. I do not know what your condition is at CM- 
cago, but we had an immense post office built there temporarily while 
we were building the new post office, and I do not know what was 
done with that temporary building. 

Gen. Wood. I think we are in one of the Federal buildings there. 

Senator Warren. It is a great building down there on the Lake 
Front, that the old j\lichigan Central and the Illinois Central ran into. 
We built it there for the post office wliile we were building the big 
post-office building. 

The Chairman. Returning for a moment to the question of officers, 
is it a fact that the companies are still very short of commissioned 
officers at this moment ? 

Gen. Wood. There is a very great shortage everywhere. 

The Chairman. vSo that these officers who will be released under 
tliis plan can be utilized to great advantage ? 

Gen. Wood. They will be a great advantage, and there will be a 
saving of officers which is not shown on that return. If you will look 
over the various departments and note the officers detached for 
various duties, as assistants to the quartermasters, and here and 
there, at tliis and the other place, you will ffiid a great many officers 
who are not on the permanent detached list, but who are actually 
detached from their organizations. The detachment became so con- 
siderable in the Philippines that a month or so ago we took it up and 
made an arbitrary order to reduce the number. 

Senator Hitchcock. I see in this table which has been furnished 
to us that the total rentals paid up to this time are approximately 



32 TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 

$52,000 a 3^ear, and that you propose to save $25,000 in rentals. That 
is partly to be done by discontinuing Denver as a department head- 
quarters, and I do not see where the rest of it is. 

Gen. Wood. I think you will find that it is in a reduction of the 
number of offices rented at Atlanta, where we have to rent a great 
many buildings and a good many rooms there. 

Senator Hitchcock. Yes; I see the amountis $13,000 there. 

Gen. Wood. And there are little items here and there. It is all 
checked up on that detailed statement. 

Senator Warren. General, I understand you were before a com- 
mittee of the House yesterday ? 

Gen. Wood. I was six hours before them. 

Senator Warren. I understand the ciuestion came up — and I am 
asking this for the benefit of Senator Hitchcock — wliether the head- 
quarters of the Department of the Platte ought not to be moved to 
Denver, and if either one of them had to be abrogated it should be the 
one at Omaha ; is that correct ? 

Gen. Wood. Yes. I had an all-day session, a great portion of 
which was devoted to questions tending to discredit our staying in 
Omaha, and showing that we ought to have gone to Denver. 

Senator Hitchcock. I see they are paying $18,000 rental in 
Denver, apparently, and. General, have you investigated to learn 
what proportion of the War Department building in Omaha will be 
vacated by this change? 

Gen. Wood. No, sir; but we are taking up the proposition, which 
was submitted with a view of removing the engineers and other 
people who are in there and utilizing it to the fullest extent. It is 
quite a big building, and big enough to handle the whole of the 
Chicago headquarters, I think. We have had a very careful report 
made, showing the number of square feet and the number of office 
rooms, and so forth, and there is a very strong appeal from Omaha 
now put in by one of the Representatives, a new Member, I think. 

Senator Hitchcock. Mr. Lobeck ? 

Gen. Wood. Mr. Lobeck, day before yesterday, and ending up by 
requesting that wherever the word ''Chicago" appears we should 
write "Omaha." 

Senator Warren. That is your post-office and courthouse building 
there ? 

Gen. Wood. Yes; I think so. 

Senator Hitchcock. It is a building on a corner, surrounded on 
all sides by light, built for Government purposes, a three-story huild- 
ing, served with a good elevator, and a fireproof building, and we 
had supposed that the permanency of that building would be an 
inducement for the Government always to maintain headquarters 
there. 

Gen. Wood. I was surprised to learn that we had a building in 
Chicago. When I was familiar with those headquarters, before the 
Spanish War, we were using the Pullman Building; we had two of 
three floors of the old Pullman Building; and I have not been there 
since, and I supposed we were still in the Pullman Building. 

Senator Briggs. Is the quartermaster's building down at Bowling 
Green, New York, a Government building? 

Gen. Wood. Yes; that is owned by the Government. It is 
known as the Army Building. That is occupied by paymasters, 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 33 

chief signal officers, and certain officers of tlie Engineer Corps, and 
quartermasters, and so forth. 

Senator Briggs. Yes. 

Senator Warren. Have you any storehouse f aciUties, and so forth, 
on Governors Island ? 

Gen. Wood. No, sir; the storehouses are at New York, principally. 
It is a great purchasing depot, and we only purchase and ship out 
immediately. 

Senator Warren. Governors Island is the headquarters of the 
post? 

Gen. Wood. Of the department; and there is stationed there one 
battalion of infantry, and the headquarters. It is the site of the 
military prison, old Castle William; and also the arsenal, under the 
Ordnance Department; and we have also there a storehouse for 
clothing, a place where clothing is cut. The cloth is examined and the 
clothing is stored there by the Quartermaster's Department. 

Senator Warren. You have rather liberal facilities in the way of 
warerooms and storehouses in California, have you not ? 

Gen. Wood. Yes. 

Senator Warren. I remember we made quite liberal appropriations 
for that purpose after the earthquake. 

Gen. Wood. Yes; you made an appropriation of $1 ,040,000 to con- 
struct storehouses and piers, and they are under way now. 

Senator Briggs. Where are they; down by the Presidio? 

Gen. Wood. They are down by Black Point, in that little cove. 

Senator Warren. That is to get the benefit of the water and a good 
harbor ? 

Senator Briggs. Yes. 

Gen. Wood. Then, again, at Governor's Island we have a very large 
fill which just about doubled the area of the island, which is just about 
being completed. 

Senator Warren. Yes; I know we appropriated for that. I think, 
in the absence of the Senator from Colorado, I ought to ask what your 
facilities are at Denver in the way of warehouses and what you have 
to pay for the rent of headquarters, and so forth. 

Gen. Wood. If you will permit me, I will put that in my answer. 
I was absent in the South last week and I have just got back. 

Senator Warren. Perhaps that information is here already. I was 
absent when Gen. Murray was here. 

Senator Hitchcock. I asked Gen. Murray to put in a tabulated 
statement here, and it is rather complete. It shows at Denver 
$18,210 a year rental. 

Senator Warren. At Atlanta what have you in the way of store- 
houses ? 

Gen. Wood. Everything at Atlanta is rented. I do not think we 
own anything there. We have a post, McPherson, right near Atlanta, 
where we would store any odds and ends of Government property. 

Senator Warren. Wliat have you to say about San Antonio ? 

Gen. Wood. We have a large post there and an old arsenal. 

Senator Warren. What I am getting at is the storehouses and the 
warehouses at these places, because they are a necessity. At St. 
Louis what have you ? 

Gen. Wood. Wc have amplfe warehouses there. 

101857—11 3 



34 TERRITOEIAL DIVISIONS IN THE AEMY, 

Senator Hitchcock. You have ample warehouses at Omaha ? 
Gen. Wood. Yes, sn\ 

Senator Beiggs. Have you warehouses at department head- 
quarters ? 

Gen. Wood. No, sir; they are only at the big posts. There are 
seldom any at department headquarters. 

Senator Waeren. What facilities did you say you had at St. Louis ? 
Gen. Wood. At St. Louis we have Jefferson Barracks, immediately 
adjoining the city, with ample opportunities, and then we have one 
or two public buildings at St. Louis used by the Quartermaster's 
Department. St. Louis of course would have a very strong claim to 
being headquarters of the central division in the way of transportation 
and everything else. 

Senator Warren. Headquarters were there at the time you made 
the divisions before ? 
Gen. Wood. Yes. 

The Chairman. As I understand it the department is not particu- 
larly pertinacious about having any particular city selected; they 
want the city selected which will best conserve the economy of 
operation ? 

Gen. Wood. That was an object; and then again we were anxious 
to disturb as few as possible of these clerks by moving arbitrarily 
division headquarters from one city to another. We have tried to 
consider as much as possible the buildings owned there to avoid 
rentals, and wherever the present situation was suitable to continue 
it to avoid as far as possible the unnecessary movement of clerks 
and oflicers and their families about. 

Senator Williams. Although in my opinion this has nothing to 
do with it particularly, I want to be able to face that sort of objection 
which may come. Taking the plan as it was before this order was 
issued and the plan as it is now with these tluee cities as centers — 
take Atlanta, for example, and tell me what would be the difference 
between the amount of money expended and distributed at Atlanta 
in the pay for salaries and supplies, and so forth, under the one plan 
and under the other ? 

Gen. Wood. I will insert in my answer the necessary statement. 
The only difference would be the difference in the salaries of the 
clerks and officers transferred and quarters rented. The difference 
in salaries is $98,000 a year, and in office rents is $8,000. Salaries 
include allowances. 

Senator Wareen. I think it would be a good thing to cover all 
those points, in view of what was brought up on the floor by Senator 
Bacon. 

Senator Williams. It has nothing to do with it, in my opinion; 
because if tliis is the best tiling for the efficiency of the Army and is 
the economical thing, I do not tliink that the amount of money spent 
m a locality is a thing to be considered. But that question may be 
raised, and I would hke to be able to meet it with a statement in 
dollars and cents. 

Gen. Wood. I will give it to you, Senator; and the only reason I 

do not make a guess at it is because I want to give it to you exactly. 

Senator Hitchcock. In 1881 Proctor was Secretary of War, and 

he directed that the divisions be abolished, and he based his action 

apparently upon a letter from Gen. Schofield which appears as Ex- 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 



35 



hibit A of this communication from the Secretary of War, and m 
that, on page 15, Gen. Schofield says: 

A department is the fundamental territorial organization. Its command and 
administration correspond in law and regulations as well as m custom, to those of an 
army in the field. 

Does not that rather argue for the maintaining of departmental 
headquarters, if an attempt is to be made to mamtam, m time ol 
peace, something similar to what would be necessary m time ol war, 
if that statement of Gen. Schofield is correct ? <. • • t- 

Gen. Wood. Those things are very largely matters of opmion, alter 
all. We do not, as we look at it now, entirely agree with Gen. 
Schofield's views as expressed. The word "department" and the 
word "division" are rather unfortunate terms to describe it. 

Senator Williams. Do you not think it would be very good to 
insert the word "territorial" in front of the word "division? 

Gen. Wood. That is a good suggestion. 

Senator Briggs. I think you want to get as far from that confusion 
of terms as you can. . o i ^ i i ■ 

Senator Hitchcock. Here in this expression Gen. bchotielcl is 
evidently referring to the department. He uses the word "depart- 
ment " and following that these departments were established, so 
that lie evidently referred to this svstem of department arrangement 
of the country, with eight or nine departments, and he makes there 
the plain declaration that the department is the fundamental terri- 
torial organization, and that its command and administration corre- 
spond in law and regulation, as w^ell as in custom, to those of an army 
in the field. 

Senator Briggs. Senator, that was 20 years ago. 

Gen. Wood. I tlunk you might as well say if we had instead of 
"department" used the words "territorial district" or "mihtary 
district," or any other term, his remarks would apply equally well. 
He was recommending this department as an^ administrative unit, 
and comparing it to an army. We are simply applying the same 
argument to a division, and ^xe are dividing this territorial division 
into departments which represent, we may say, the subordinate parts 
of an army or a division, and we are handling those as tactical units 
instead of ■administrative units, and are putting all the administration 

in the division. . • ^i • -f 

Senator Warren. I think that somewhere, m answering this, it 
you have not alreadv done it, if there is any reason on account ol 
the different make-up of armies to-day on account of machine guns, 
and so forth, that reason ought to be set out. It would not apply at 
tliis particular point in the hearing, perhaps. ,• • ^ 

Gen Wood. These departments are simply really military districts 
divided in such a way as to give the best means of communication, as 
nearly as possible, and a reasonable command for a brigadier general, 
and the whole motive back of this thing, from a mihtary standpoint, 
is to free the department commander from the administrative details, 
so that he can live with his troops. Wlien I was in command of the 
Department of the East, it was very difhcult for me to get out and 
make an inspection. The inspection of a command should take three 
or four days. You want to put the organization m camp and give it 
some night problems and field exercises, trying it out m every possible 
way. Now^, if you have all these administrative details, you have to 



36 TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN THE ARMY. 

delegate those things to somebody else or not go away. The result 
is that you do not go; and if you do, you make a hurried rush to a 
post and spend a day where you ought to spend a week. 

For instance, if you are going to inspect a regiment of cavalry, one 
way Avould be to go to the cavalry post, say Fort Ethan Allen, in the 
morning, turn the regiment out, ride around it and look at it, and 
go to the stables and then go away. You do not know anything 
about that regiment. The only way to inspect that regiment is to 
take it out for a day's hard march and give it some field problems 
and see what the condition of the horses is, and look into the whole 
military administration of it. But when they had all these adminis- 
trative duties on their hands the result was — and I am not criticiz- 
ing any one for it — that our department commarrders were drifting 
into a purely clerical routine. That is a candid and entirely frank, 
and, I believe, entirely correct statement. 

Senator Hitchcock. What is going to become of your division 
commanders ? 

Gen. Wood. Your division commander now is charged with the 
administration. 

Seirator Hitchcock. And he will be purely an administrative man ? 

Gen. Wood. He is practically the administrative head. His inspec- 
tions will be made at large summer encam})ments, when you bring 
together bodies of troops big enough to demand it — your sumemer 
maneuvers, and so forth. That will be when he will put in his work. 

Senator Hitchcock. General, why was it that this old system 
remained established so long, from 1891 practically to the present 
time ? 

» Gen. Wood. If 3-ou go back, Mr. Senator, over the whole history of 
the Army there is a good deal that we did not put in this pamphlet, 
and you will find that divisions and departments have swayed accord- 
ing to policies of administration. Now we are trying to bring the 
Army into this form. The Indian problems are over. 

In the old days it ^^as probably necessary for all the administration 
of a department on the frontier to be centered at department head- 
quarters, because Indian campaigns were going on on the western side 
of the department, and perhaps all over it, and you had to have 
there all the elements of supply under the control of the department 
commander. But under present conditions we believe that we can 
do all that better for the Arnry asawhole and train our general officers, 
our brigadier generals, much more thoroughh" under this system. 
That is the principle of it; but of course when it comes to the question 
of economy we are very glad it makes something of a showing. 

The Chairman. And it also releases some officers. 

Gen. Wood. Yes; a considerable number of officers. 

Senator Hitchcock. As I understand, the division plan was in 
force at the close of the war ? 

Gen. Wood. Yes; and it was in the eighties, when I came into the 
service. I know we had three divisions. 

Senator Hitchcock. But the tendency since that time has appa- 
rently been to divide the country into seven or eight departments and 
allow those to administer and discipline tb.e forces in those depart- 
ments. 

Gen. Wood. We are trying, Senator, to cut out as much as we can, 
from the troops, the paper work, and the detail, and throw that more 



TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS IN" THE ARMY. 37 

into the administrative centers. We have to-day, as you know, a 
board in connection with the Cleveland Board,- sitting in the War De- 
partment since last September, devoting itself very largely to the 
question of simplification of correspondence, -and the underlying 
principle which has guided us has been to remove from the combatant 
force to as great an extent as possible the details of correspondence, 
and to simplify it; and I think that this department and division 
scheme is going to cut out most of the correspondence from the 
departments. The department commander, ivlien he makes his 
inspections of troops, wdll report upon any shortages of supply, 
defects in shelter, want of clothing and equipment, etc. Adminis- 
trative details of making good these defects will rest with division 
headquarters. 

The result will be, as stated above, to free our department com- 
manders from much of the administrative detail with which they are 
now loaded down. We hope also to gradually arrange our commands 
so that brigadier generals will have appropriately organized commands 
of ))roper strength. 

The Chairman. That is the condition of affairs that obtains with 
great European powers in time of peace ? 

Gen. Wood. Yes. In time of peace the troops are organized so 
that they can be immediately expanded into their full units at full 
strength. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions any member of the 
committee would like to ask of Gen. Wood? 

Senator Hitchcock. Several other Senators are unfortunately 
absent. Senator Chamberlain was very much interested in this 
matter locally, as I am. 

Senator Briggs. I understood the general to say that the arrange- 
ments for purchases do not change at all ? 

Gen. Wood. No, sir. 

Senator Hitchcock. Of course these men, while they li^ve received 
those assurances, know that when all the correspondence in regard to 
purchases has got to go 2,000 miles away it handicaps them, and it 
gives local bidders a great advantage. 

Senator Warren. Mr. Chairman, I want to say this: I do not 
know which way is best, but I have always taken the view, and I have 
it yet, that the Army should look out for itself as an army, without 
having its main sole object to pander to the trade and commerce of 
these towns, large or small; but, of course, in a secondaiy way, I 
believe it should be of whatever local benefit it can be. I believe the 
first consideration is what is best for the Army. As to which way is 
best, I am not passing judgment on that. 

(At 12.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned, subject to the 
call of the chairman.) 

O 






mmm 




